Archives for category: Politics

On the blog called “Public Notice,” Aaron Rupar and Noah Berlatsky wrote about Trump’s unhinged speech yesterday. He is angry and incoherent every time he speaks, so the media doesn’t find his rants to be newsworthy. As the authors point out, the media would jump all over Biden for the factual errors that Trump commits (yesterday, he confused the dictator of North Korea with the president of Iran); but Trump gets a pass because his errors, lies, and hatred are routine.

Rupar and Berlatsky write:

The vice presidential debate will be a main topic of political conversation today, but far more important (and disturbing) things happened before it took place.

This isn’t to say the debate wasn’t memorable. There were at least a couple exchanges that stood out. One came when JD Vance got upset about a moderator interjecting to fact-check racist lies he used to smear his own constituents….

But these moments pale in comparison to Donald Trump’s most troubling showing yet on the campaign trail. Across two campaign events in Wisconsin on Tuesday, the former and would-be president reiterated a truth that is much more important than who won the debate: namely, that he’s morally and intellectually unfit for office.

Both Trump events were packed with outrageous defamations and lies. His targets included troops wounded abroad while he was president, which would be unthinkable in anything resembling a normal era of politics.

Vicious as Trump’s attacks were, they also managed to be muddled in ways suggesting he isn’t up to the task of being president until he’s 82 years old. Vance’s slick lying and election denialism is even more ominous given the possibility that he may end up as the country’s leader in a second, nightmarish, Trump term.

Trump spews and spews some more

Trump’s public addresses are disjointed and disconnected from reality at the best of times. Yesterday, however, was a particularly wide-ranging journey through conspiracy theories, hatred, and nonsense.

His first speech of the day in the the Madison suburb of Waunakee featured racially coded attacks on Brittney Griner, a Black American basketball player who was held hostage in Russia. Trump also lied about opposing the Iraq War and said all sorts of strange stuff, such as accusing Democrats of supporting “water-free bathrooms.” 

The lowlight, however, came when Trump flat out defamed Kamala Harris for murder, saying of a murder victim, “She murdered him. In my opinion Kamala murdered him. Just like she had a gun in her hand.” (So much for Trump toning down the rhetoric and offering a message of unity — watch the clip below.)

Even lower depths were explored during Trump’s appearance later in the day in Milwaukee. Taking questions from the press, he told a reporter who asked him if he trusts the election process this time around that “I’ll let you know in 33 days” — the implication being that he would accept the results only if he wins. Riffing about immigration, he wandered off into a bizarre, woozy, blatantly racist rant about people in the Congo, a country that he boasted he did not know anything about. (“They come from the Congo in the Africa. Many people from the Congo. I don’t know what that is, but they come out of jails in the Congo.”) 

Then, in a moment that would’ve driven news cycles for days had Biden done it, Trump confused the dictator of North Korea, Kim Jong Un, with the president of Iran, Masoud Pezeshkian, and claimed his buddy Kim “is trying to kill me.” (Watch below.)

But all of this was just warning up to a scene during the Milwaukee event that would’ve ended anyone else’s presidential campaign.

🎤 Subscribe to Public Notice 🎤

Trump mocks troops injured in the line of duty

That debacle came when a reporter asked Trump if he should’ve been tougher in retaliation against Iran after they launched a 2020 missile attack on a US base in Iraq, which injured more than 100 US soldiers. The Iranian launch was in retaliation for a US drone strike which killed Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani. More than 100 US soldiers suffered traumatic brain injuries.

Trump at the time lied about the incident, insisting that no soldiers were harmed and that he’d “heard that they had headaches.” The episode was mostly forgotten over the ensuing four years, but Trump reminded everyone about it during his news conference, peevishly responding to the reporter: “So first of all — injured. What does injured mean? Injured means — you mean because they had a headache? Because the bombs never hit the fort.” 

After Trump finished downplaying serious, life-changing injuries suffered by the troops, he then attacked the reporter for not being “truthful” while mixing up Iraq and Iran. (Watch below.)

Somehow, it got worse. Trump went on to characterize the Iranian attack as “a very nice thing” because Iran didn’t escalate further, which he suggested was the result of his toughness. Again, Trump praised Iran for a “nice” attack which seriously injured more than 100 US soldiers. (Walz highlighted these remarks from Trump during Tuesday’s debate, saying “when Iranian missiles did fall near US troops and they received traumatic brain injuries, Donald Trump wrote it off as headaches.”)

Trump’s self-aggrandizing, confused, pompous, cynical, cruel, insulting lies are not surprising. Again, he has even pushed this particular lie before. He’s also made misleading statements to erase or distract from the fact that soldiers died in Afghanistan during his presidency. He’s called soldiers who die in combat “suckers” and “losers.”

It’s manifestly clear that Trump thinks that soldiers killed or injured on his watch are an inconvenience. He mocks their sacrifice, mocks their injuries, and praises regimes that target them.

This post at Public Notice was followed by this one, written by Stephen Robinson. It sums up a vivid portrait of Trump as an addled old man.


Trump’s ignorance, callousness, and lies are not new. But what is novel is the way they all seem to have been slowed down these days so that he seems ever more adrift in his own fog of hate and ego. He mixes up world leaders, confuses countries, garbles pronouns, loses track of his nonsense talking points.
The remarks Trump gave in Milwaukee before he took questions from reporters were remarkably low energy by his standards. Check out the below clip of Trump praising his catastrophic covid response in a horse rasp, continually looking down to check his notes, repeating the same phrases of self-praise, getting stuck in a loop on pet words or slogans (“Wuhan … Wuhan … ”), telling subdued and meandering lies with no rhythm or applause lines. And indeed, there is no applause; the MAGA faithful are silent, wooed into a tedious fascist stupor.

It would be nice to think that such displays of grotesque ignorance, hatred, authoritarianism, and contempt for the country, for injured service members, and indeed for his own voters, would lead everyone to conclude, en masse, that Trump is disgustingly, massively, inarguably unfit to hold any office of public trust, much less president. But as we know, partisanship, racism, and institutional failures, from the media to the courts to the Justice Department, may allow Trump to win in November.

If he does, he will sit in the Oval Office. But his decrepit campaign performances suggest he will be even less capable of pretending to be anything other than a declining bigot than he was the first time around. And who’s likely to pick up the slack?

Well, as historian Kevin Kruse says, if Trump succumbs to ill health, or just sinks into his natural state of sloth and indifference, the president, de jure or de facto, would be JD Vance, “a deeply unpopular weirdo with virtually no experience, someone who won his first election less than two years ago and even then only because he’s the puppet of an insane billionaire.”

Yesterday was yet another reminder that the Republican ticket is a hideous and embarrassing blight on the American experiment and the American character. Yet, Trump continues to slump towards power, with Vance smirking and smugly lying alongside him. We’ve got about a month before we as a country either rebuke them or follow them into derp, hate, and despair.

John Thompson, historian and former teacher, describes in this post the latest trampling of the rights of students and teachers by Ryan Walters, the state’s Secretary of Education. Secretary Walters wants to eject “indoctrination” from the schools but replace it with his own brand of introdoctrination. True MAGA!

Thompson:

Somethings Happening Here; What Is, Never Is Clear. 

In July, State Superintendent Ryan Walters announced that an executive committee would overhaul Oklahoma’s standards in order to eliminate DEI and “indoctrination,” and highlight “American exceptionalism.” It would feature prominent conservatives, including Dennis Prager of PragerU, David Barton of the Christian Nationalist organization, Wallbuilders, and the president of the Heritage Foundation, Kevin Roberts.”

In an interview with NBC News, Walters then threatened, “Oklahoma educators who refuse to teach students about the Bible could lose their teaching license.”

And Roberts, a sponsor of Project 2025, has further explained,  “We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” Roberts also told the New York Times that “he views Heritage’s role today as ‘institutionalizing Trumpism.’”

According to FOX 25, in early September, the entire Social Studies Standards Committee met “to discuss what they thought would be a final review.”  Instead, an undisclosed draft of their standards, was presented by the executive committee. Moreover FOX News was told that committee members “had to sign non-disclosure agreements not to share what was being discussed and were reminded of the NDAs at the end of the session.”

FOX’s sources also said, “what happened Tuesday left them ‘disheartened.’” One source said, “I want to throw up.”

Moreover, State Rep. Forrest Bennett described the meeting as, “essentially getting them into a room today and saying ‘Thanks for all your work. We don’t care. We’re deleting, copy-pasting … [and imposing] right-wing, out-of-state, out-of-touch, standards.'”

The same week, new information was disclosed in regard to revoking the teaching license of Summer Boismier. In 2022, her district, “fearing the grave risk of an HB 1775 complaint required teachers to remove their classroom libraries until they could read every book or provide multiple sources to confirm each title was age appropriate.” So, Boismier, “covered the shelves of her classroom library with red butcher paper on which she wrote ‘books the state doesn’t want you to read.’” She also “posted a QR code in her classroom that linked to an online library containing banned books.”  (HB 1775 basically banned eight concepts in a confusing way; essentially it was an attack on what the state called Critical Race Theory, which wasn’t actually being taught in schools.)

In 2023, “an administrative law judge found [that] the Education Department failed to prove that Boismier’s conduct justified revocation of her teaching certificate.” But in August of 2024, Board of Education issued their revocation order without revealing what it said. We now know that Boismier was accused of “’circumventing’ HB 1775, but not of teaching any of its banned concepts.”

And now Boismier’s attorney says, “It should be an easy call for the courts to overturn it, since Walters chose to throw out the actual facts and law in the case to get the results he wanted and campaigned on.”

In other cases during that week, Edmond teacher, Regan Killackey, is fighting in court against Walters’ effort to revoke his teaching license for “goofing around with his son and daughter in a party supply store in September 2019, snapping photos. His daughter put on a mask of Donald Trump. His son held up a silver plastic sword, and Killackey grimaced.”

And, Republican Rep. Kevin Wallace announced:

That the Legislative Office of Fiscal Transparency (LOFT) would begin an investigation into spending concerns regarding the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE). This investigation, approved by Speaker Charles McCall, R-Atoka, and spearheaded by Wallace in his capacity as Chairman of LOFT, will focus on issues raised by both legislators and private citizens regarding alleged OSDE funding disbursement issues.

Moreover, all relevant information will be shared “with Attorney General Gentner Drummond regarding any potential violations of the Open Records or Open Meeting Acts by OSDE.”

So, what’s happening here in Oklahoma “ain’t exactly clear,” but we know that more Republican legislators are resisting Walters and it seems unlikely that Walters’ overreach will hold up in court. What I hear from legislators is that the effort to impose Project 2025 on history standards has prompted a serious tumult behind closed doors. It’s also clear that Walters and the Heritage Foundation will continue their assaults on public education. But, I’m confident that Walters, at least, his heading for a fall. 

On September 9, Lisa Dye of Public Notice wrote about why Brazilian authorities banished Twitter (or, as its proprietor calls it, X). She wrote that he sticks up for his rightwing buddies, not free speech. In 2022, Brazil’s strongman leader Bolsonaro bestowed a prestigious national award on Musk.

She writes:

As of this writing Brazil’s 215 million citizens cannot access X (or “twitter” as we’ll call it). And yet, they are still living in the dumbest timeline.

Elon Musk, the world’s foremost “free speech absolutist,” has picked a fight with the Brazilian government over its demand that he censor rightwing misinformation. It’s a classic situation of “why can’t they both lose?” But right now, the only ones losing are the Brazilian people.

The saga began with former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a rightwing conservative who lost his bid for reelection in 2022 to leftwing politician Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. On January 8 of last year, Bolsonaro’s supporters stormed Congress and the Supreme Court in a failed attempt to keep him in power. 

The reaction of the Brazilian government to January 8 stands in stark contrast to official reaction to January 6 in the US. In Brazil, hundreds of people were immediately arrested, including some senior government officials. Bolsonaro was barred from running for office again. And Supreme Court justice Alexandre de Moraes led an operation that was both investigatory and preventative. In short, they wanted to figure out why their government had been attacked, and they wanted to make damn sure that it never happened again. 

To that end, Judge de Moraes sought to banish rightwing incitement, the so-called “digital militias,” from social media. In sealed rulings, he ordered Meta, Instagram, and Telegram to remove posts and users who flogged misinformation about the attack on government and advocated for Bolonsaro’s return. 

Meanwhile, Bolsonaro fled to Florida, where he launched a second act as hero of the American right. The Brazilian leader spews the same jingoistic populism, fueled by hatred of minorities and LGBTQ+ people, that animates Trumpism. He even consulted Steve Bannon on his 2018 campaign. And perhaps most importantly, he reinforces their bedrock belief that election fraud is rampant.

As former congressman and current Trump Media CEO Devin Nunes told CNN, “The way his narrative is built, to a large extent, as a copy or a mirror image of the narrative that they have in the US is very useful in the sense of showing people this is happening in other places, too. This proves the whole idea that there is a global conspiracy, a global leftwing conspiracy to keep us, the people who represent the real people, out of power.”

However, Musk has 20 million Twitter subscribers in Brazil, and they were drifting to other platforms, like Mark Zuckerberg’s Threads. Worse, the Brazilian Supreme Court took $2 million from Musk’s Starlink to satisfy its claims against Musk’s X. What did Musk do when threatened with fines and the loss of market share?

The New York Times reported on September 21:

Elon Musk suddenly appears to be giving up.

After defying court orders in Brazil for three weeks, Mr. Musk’s social network, X, has capitulated. In a court filing on Friday night, the company’s lawyers said that X had complied with orders from Brazil’s Supreme Court in the hopes that the court would lift a block on its site.

The decision was a surprise move by Mr. Musk, who owns and controls X, after he said he had refused to obey what he called illegal orders to censor voices on his social network. Mr. Musk had dismissed local employees and refused to pay fines. The court responded by blocking X across Brazil last month.

Now, X’s lawyers said the company had done exactly what Mr. Musk vowed not to: take down accounts that a Brazilian justice ordered removed because the judge said they threatened Brazil’s democracy. X also complied with the justice’s other demands, including paying fines and naming a new formal representative in the country, the lawyers said.

Brazil’s Supreme Court confirmed X’s moves in a filing on Saturday, but said the company had not filed the proper paperwork. It gave X five days to send further documentation.

The abrupt about-face from Mr. Musk in Brazil appeared to be a defeat for the outspoken businessman and his self-designed image as a warrior for free speech. Mr. Musk and his company had loudly and harshly criticized Brazil’s Supreme Court for months, even publicly releasing some of its sealed orders, but neither had publicly mentioned their reversal by Saturday morning.

The moment showed how, in the yearslong power struggle between tech giants and nation-states, governments have been able to keep the upper hand.

Mr. Musk has had to come to terms with that reality in other countries, including India and Turkey, where his social network complied with orders to censor certain posts. But in Brazil and Australia, he complained about government orders he disagreed with and accused local officials of censorship. His company’s responses to governments have often been in line with his personal politics.

In the U.S., where Musk will never be censored, he has restored accounts of neo-Nazis, election deniers, and COVID science deniers. His own Twitter feed is an advertising platform for Trump. He frequently highlights outrageous pro-Trump, anti-Harris messages.

It’s sad to think that this hateful, bigoted man “owns” the world’s town square, where no one ever fact-checks him or moderates his Tweets.

Just proves, as if proof were needed, that money is power.

Staten Island is one of the five boroughs of New York City. It is the only borough that consistently votes Republican. Trump is, not surprisingly, popular in Staten Island.

Brian Laline, the editor of The Staten Island Advance, wrote the following editorial:

Hi Neighbor,

There’s talk of investigations, subpoenas and Florida officials charging the suspected gunman with attempted murder in the aftermath of the second assassination attempt of former President Donald Trump.

As there should be.

There is something seriously wrong when, in this climate of intense political divide, someone with an AK 47 can hide for 12 hours in the bushes on the perimeter of a golf course owned and used by a combative presidential candidate, without being spotted.

Twelve hours!

This after another madman lurked the perimeter of an outdoor Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, eventually firing an AR-15 at the former president, grazing his ear.


Another quarter-inch and the man would have been dead.

After the latest attempt at Trump International Golf Course in West Palm Beach, a sheriff told reporters that “when somebody gets into the shrubbery, they’re pretty much out of sight.”

That, neighbors, is a ridiculous statement. Maybe I watch too many cop shows, but they have these things called “thermal drones,” sheriff. They find people.  Even in shrubbery.

When a mayor or governor visits the Advance offices for an editorial board meeting, a security detail arrives hours earlier and sweeps the building, wanting to know what room the official will be in, how the official will get to that room, which chair the official will be seated, and the names of every person who will be in the room.

But then the sheriff told the real story . . .

“At this level that he [Trump] is at right now, he’s not the sitting president…” 

In other words, the near assassination in Butler didn’t make much of a difference in the level of the protection Donald Trump received.

You can bet that will change. As it should, because the level of divisive rhetoric is only increasing – despite pleas that everyone calm down.

And frankly, as much as this will inflame neighbors who make up Donald Trump’s base, the former president, his VP pick, his campaign people and his supporters are not helping to calm the roiling political waters.

Donald Trump cannot play nice to save his life – literally.

True, he called for unity after the Butler assassination attempt, positing on social media, “it is more important than ever that we stand United.”

That didn’t last long, following up at a rally with this . . .

“They say something happened to me when I got shot . . . I became nice.  When you’re dealing with these people . . .  they’re very dangerous people  . . . you can’t be too nice . . . I’m not going to be nice.”

What “dangerous people” he was referring to was never made clear.

The former president, his VP pick and his cable news mouthpieces blame Kamala Harris and Joe Biden for the latest attempt on his life.

“Their rhetoric is causing me to be shot at, when I am the one who is going to save the country and they are the ones that are destroying the country — both from the inside and out,” Trump told Fox News.

Democrats have “taken politics in our Country to a whole new level of Hatred, Abuse, and Distrust,” he wrote in another social media post.

Dems, for their part, say that Donald J. Trump is a “threat to democracy,” which the Trump camp takes umbrage. I guess constantly ranting that he lost an election because Democrats fixed it, and thousands of supporters taking siege of the Capitol Building to overthrow said election is not a threat to democracy.

To paraphrase Billy Joel, Mr. Trump, Democrats didn’t start this fire.

Who insisted Barack Obama was not born in the United States? Who threatens to jail political foes? Who, to this day, says Democrats “stole” the 2020 election?  Who continually calls Kamala Harris a communist? Comrade Kamala? A radical left Marxist? A woman who will cause a Great Depression?  “She’s a Marxist, communist, fascist, socialist.”

Donald Trump.

Mr. Trump and his sidekick Vance ought to get on the same page. They seem to differ on who calls whom a fascist.

“Look, we can disagree with one another, we can debate one another,” Vance told a crowd in Georgia just the other day, “but we cannot tell the American people that one candidate is a fascist . . .”

We can’t? But your running mate just called Harris . . . oh never mind.

There’s an old saying that Donald Trump just doesn’t get:

Words matter.

Let’s take the absurd claim he made during the recent debate.

“. . . They’re eating the dogs. The people that came in, they’re eating the cats,” he told millions watching. It has become a national joke. 

Guess what? It’s not funny.

Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, and by extension, everyone in Springfield, have become a target. Bomb threats are constant.  Schools have been evacuated or closed. Hospitals have closed. College campuses have been shut down. Festivals have been cancelled.

All because of threats against Haitians.  All because of absurd claims by Trump and Vance.  And to make it even worse, Vance admits he makes up stories to get attention.

“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do,” he told CNN.

Political violence has been part of the American experiment since the beginning. Think the American Revolution and Civil War. Lincoln didn’t survive his visit to Ford’s Theatre. JFK lost his life in Dallas.  Bobby Kennedy was killed in L.A. and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King assassinated in Memphis. Presidents Garfield and McKinley were murdered. Ronald Reagan was shot while in office, while Teddy Roosevelt was shot after he left office. Alabama Gov. George Wallace was shot and paralyzed while he campaigned for office. 

There have been many others, the latest being Mr. Trump.

Will these heinous acts ever be eliminated in our country? I think you’ll agree it’s doubtful.

But do we have to make the possibility even worse?

Brian

Chris Tomlinson of the Houston Chronicle believes that the debate will not matter to the partisans on either side. Not so clear is the impact of the debate on those not aligned with either party.

He writes:

The Sept. 10 presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris was must-see TV for people who closely follow politics. For those who love the genre, the candidates delivered an instant classic.

Trump brought his stump speech to national television, while Harris proved up to the task and avoided any major gaffes. But will it make a difference?

The June debate between Trump and Joe Bidendrew 51.3 million viewers, well below the 73 million people who watched their 2016 debate. Overnight numbers, which tend to underestimate viewership, estimated 65 million people tuned in Tuesday night.

Folks who watched the debate live more than likely tuned in to watch their champion do battle with their opponent. While nearly two-thirds of uncommitted focus groups said Harris dominated, Trump’s and Harris’ partisans declared their candidate the winner. No surprise there.

This week, I wrote about Colin Allred’s campaign to unseat Ted Cruz in the U.S. Senate. I said Allred was naive to believe he could attract Republican voters. Reader emails confirmed that party affiliation is far more critical than any politician or their policies.

“Many of us would otherwise vote for Allred if control of the Senate was not at risk.  As is, we cannot take the chance of losing a Republican Senate seat,” Clay Spires wrote.

“I can’t bring myself to send Chuck Schumer another rubber-stamp vote in that highly polarized environment,” Greg Groh wrote about his ballot. “Only when both parties run moderates will voters have to start thinking again.”

By this reasoning, many Republicans will hold their nose and vote for Trump, no matter what he says. He really could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes.

If the debate has any impact on independents, it will likely take place on social media, where people who didn’t watch it live will see snippets. The highly partisan editing, though, risks turning off voters disgusted by politics.

The real wildcard came after the debate when Taylor Swift felt compelled to make her position clear to 283 million Instagram followers that AI-generated images of her endorsing Trump were false. The world’s most famous childless cat lady has spoken.

Voter enthusiasm will decide this election, and women will likely make the difference, not the debate.

Karl Rove was the strategist behind the rise of George W. Bush. When he speaks, Republicans listen. He wrote the following article in The Wall Street Journal. The headline writer at the conservative journal described Trump’s performance as “catastrophic.” Trump has repeatedly described Harris in demeaning terms as dumb, a “DEI hire,” and a woman who rose in politics by giving out sexual favors. Yet she made mincemeat of him on the debate stage.

Rove wrote:

Tuesday’s debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump was a train wreck for him, far worse than anything Team Trump could have imagined…

Mr. Trump had to know the vice president would try to get him to lose his cool. She did. She went after him on his multiple indictments. She called him “weak” and belittled him as a six-time bankrupt, spoiled inheritor of wealth. She said his former national security adviser thought him, in her words, “dangerous and unfit” for the Oval Office.

As is frequently the case with Mr. Trump, he let his emotions get the better of him. He took the bait almost every time she put it on the hook, offering a pained smile as she did. Rather than dismissing her attacks and launching his strongest counterarguments against her, Mr. Trump got furious. As her attacks continued, his voice rose. He gripped the podium more often and more firmly. He grimaced and shook his head, at times responding with wild and fanciful rhetoric. Short, deft replies and counterpunches would have been effective. He didn’t deliver them…

There was no sustained, specific indictment of her record on almost any issue. Mr. Trump offered angry responses, pursed lips and eyes darting mostly down, seldom looking at her. And what was it with his makeup that left white circles around his eyes? This was his most important opportunity to make an impression of strength and relative stability.

Both candidates made significant misstatements. Ms. Harris said her opponent “left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression” and Mr. Trump declared inflation under Biden-Harris “probably the worst in our nation’s history.” But his false statements far outnumbered hers by my count…

It matters how debating candidates carry themselves. There, it was no contest. Ms. Harris came across as calm, confident, strong and focused on the future. Mr. Trump came across as hot, angry and fixated on the past, especially his own. She mastered the split screen, projecting confidence and wordlessly undercutting him by smiling while shaking her head as he spoke…

Trump enthusiasts will be upset that the ABC interviewers fact-checked the former president far more than they did Ms. Harris. Then again, he gave them plenty of material to work with—such as repeating the bizarre claim that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, are eating the pets of local residents. That was probably Team Trump’s lowest moment.

Will this debate have an effect? Yes, though perhaps not as much as Team Harris hopes or as much as Team Trump might fear. But there’s no putting lipstick on this pig. Mr. Trump was crushed by a woman he previously dismissed as “dumb as a rock.” Which raises the question: What does that make him?

Republicans were blindsided when President Biden announced that he was stepping down, and he endorsed his Vice President, Kamala Harris. All of their planning and strategy was targeted on Biden, who—they said—was too old, senile, sleepy, confused, and unable to lead the country. They had ads and video clips ready to roll. They were not at all happy to learn that Biden was taking himself out of the race. They had to redirect their slime machine to Harris, not Biden.

Sad, very sad, as Trump might say.

They quickly recalibrated their attack ads. First, they insisted that Biden could not leave the ticket. It wasn’t fair, they said. Then they said Harris could not have access to the money raised for the Biden-Harris ticket; they threatened to sue. Then they said it was undemocratic to put Harris at the top of the ticket because primary voters didn’t choose her. But of course they did vote for her. They voted for Biden and Harris.

They said that Kamala Harris was “a radical Communist.” They said she was the “worst Vice President in American history.”

None of these claims caught fire, so they settled on attacking Harris because she laughed too much. Really. They called her “a cackling hyena.”

It’s true, Kamala smiles a lot and flashes her joyous smile at crowds. And she laughs often. Her laugh is genuine and it is contagious. She makes people happy.

So the Republicans thought they could diminish her by denouncing her expressions of happiness.

They must have thought that people would recoil at the sight of Kamala Harris laughing.

But they haven’t, they didn’t, and they won’t.

People see Trump and they see him scowling and angry. He likes to look angry. When he had his mug shot taken in Atlanta, he posed with a dark scowl.

Have you ever seen him laugh or smile? I haven’t. Does he have a sense of humor. I think not.

Imagine if you were offered an hour with either Trump or Harris. Which would you choose? The angry one or the happy one? The one who was embittered by his grievances or the one who would take an interest in you? The one who was angry or the one who was joyful?

The Harris campaign made an ad that begins with Trump saying that he hates it when people laugh at him. Then there is about 60 seconds of clips showing Kamala laughing uproariously.

They cleverly took Trump’s sneering at her laugh and made a cartoon ad featuring her laugh.

Keep laughing, Kamala.

In her column in the Washington Post today, Jennifer Rubin explains why Kamala Harris is the best person to replace Biden. She is smart, experienced, tough, articulate, and ready. She is 59, and Trump—not Biden—would be the elderly person in the race. Rubin believes that if Harris passed over, the Democratic Party would be a shambles. Harris, she believes would energize the youth vote. Furthermore, she would be able to call out Trump’s lies without fumbling. The media is prepped to call out Biden’s gaffes, pauses, mistakes, stumbles; Harris speaks clearly and decisively. Furthermore, she is well-versed in the harms of the Dobbs decision and could appeal to Republican women.

Rubin writes:

As of this writing, President Biden hasn’t said he would step away from the 2024 campaign. Democrats nevertheless seem poised to move on. In multiple appearances, including TV interviews and meetings with Democratic lawmakers, Biden has not convinced them he is capable of winning the race, in large part because the race has become about him — his age, his health, his capacity. Each appearance becomes a “Perils of Pauline” moment in which supporters gird themselves for a gaffe or stumble. A race that was supposed to be about Donald Trump is now about Biden’s infirmities.

I know the feeling. I have watched Biden’s appearances with trepidation. I admire him and respect him and marvel at his accomplishments. But I worry that the press is now primed to catch any mistake he makes and blow it up, while ignoring Trump’s obsession with “the late, great Hannibal Lecter” and his nutty insistence that he won the 2020 election.

She cancels Trump’s only issue: Biden’s frailty. And she can shift the focus to his extremist plans.

Rubin says:

Without Biden attracting questions about his physical and mental fitness, perhaps the media might finally focus on Trump’s unhinged rants, compulsive lying and utter lack of policy knowledge.

Kamala Harris is the best candidate to oppose the Insurrectionist-in-Chief.

Jay Kuo reacts to the failed assassination attempt and the likely political fallout.

I want to discuss what we know so far about the shooter, what the response from officials from both parties have been, and a Trump bump in the polls. My view is that bump is likely to be temporary and will be mixed in with his expected convention bounce. I don’t think that we are “screwed” by this, as some in my circles have lamented, because Trump is now some kind of martyr. On the contrary, I expect that Trump, being Trump, more likely than not will overplay his hand and squander whatever goodwill he might have gained from it. 

Let’s walk through this together.

What we know already about the shooter 

When it was clear that the shooter was dead and the immediate danger had passed, my first thought was, “Please don’t let it be a minority / immigrant / trans person.” We know how that would be milked by the right.

Instead, it appears the shooter fit a familiar profile: A young white male armed with an AR-15 style semiautomatic assault rifle. His name was Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20 years old, and he was from a town 40 miles from the rally called Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. 

He was also apparently a gun aficionado, as evidenced by the T-shirt he was wearing featuring the “Demolition Ranch” logo. According to writer Robert Evans, that brand is “probably the largest / most monetized gun YouTube media empire.”

And, given this profile, it was not really a surprise to learn that Crooks was also a registered Republican and had voted in the 2022 primary. 

But just to confuse things a bit, eight months before he registered as a Republican, Crooks also appears to have donated $15 to a progressive liberal GOTV group, back when he was still 17. But he did so on the day of Biden’s inauguration on January 20, 2021, so who knows what he was thinking. 

We have yet to hear from his family as to any possible motive or circumstance.

Given this profile, it will be difficult for Republicans to make the case that a crazed leftist tried to take out their presidential candidate. Crooks was a registered Republican with an assault rifle. 

But wait! Why on earth would a radicalized Republican want to assassinate Trump? That makes zero sense, right? It turns out that the idea that a Trump assassination would be somehow beneficial for the right was actually advanced publicly five months ago, according to right-wing watch group Patriot Takes. On Infowars, Alex Jones and a guest spoke openlyabout how a Trump assassination would be “so much better for us and so much worse for them” because it would lead to retaliatory in-kind assassinations of a “deep state” list that included President Joe Biden. It’s just the kind of insane idea that a young and troubled zealot might attempt.

We may not ever know what motivated Crooks to shoot at Trump. But agitators on the fringe right should not be ruled out. And in any event, we should be renewing calls for banning AR-15 style semiautomatic rifles, requiring background checks and waiting periods, and imposing an age limit of 21 on all purchases. Perhaps Democrats should reintroduce legislation to do all that, call it the “Trump Assault Ban,” and force the GOP to vote against or filibuster it.

What officials are saying

There is a stark contrast between how high level Democratic officials and GOP officials are messaging around the attack. Democratic leaders have universally condemned the action and called for unity, while many in the GOP have sought to exploit the moment for politics and even leveled baseless accusations against Joe Biden.

But unity was far from the minds of many in the GOP. Top VP top contender JD Vance posted, without evidence or basis,

Today is not just some isolated incident.

The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs.

That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.

It is the height of irony to claim that Biden campaign rhetoric, which has never called for violence, somehow led to an attack, when Trump himself has engaged in non-stop attacks upon his perceived enemies that have led directly to death threats, doxxing, and even judicial gag orders to put a stop to it.

Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA) took things even further, calling for the Butler County, PA prosecutor to charge Joe Biden with inciting an assassination. He also claimed, without basis and to inflame his followers, that Joe Biden “sent the orders” for the attack.

Many commentators have already contrasted Biden’s grace and calls for unity to Trump’s callous mocking of the brutal attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband and his open questioning of the attempted kidnapping of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer as a “fake deal” at the CPAC gathering in 2022. Among independents and undecided voters, this could become a point of comparison and contrast on the question of character, which voters value as highly as honesty and strength. As the threat of chaos and violence grows, there is a strong case to be made that Biden is the candidate who will turn down the national temperature, while Trump will ignite bloodshed. Voters who are sick of political warfare may see that the Democratic ticket offers the only way out of it.

The dreaded Trump bump

Another popular hot take is that the election will now swing irrevocably to Trump as a martyr and survivor of an assassination attempt. Historically speaking, however, the aftermath of unsuccessful assassination attempts is a mixed bag for candidates…

I suspect that the race will remain essentially tied once the news cycle moves on. After all, it would be different if Trump had never played the “victim” and “martyr” cards before. But he has been singing that tune for some time, and those who already see him as a hero for enduring attacks were already baked into the numbers. It’s quite possible Trump doesn’t gain a whole lot more as a “victim” today.

I also suspect that Trump and the GOP will overplay this for sympathy. Already, they are trying to raise money on the news, selling digital collector cards showing Trump with his fist raised high after the attack. That may work with his hardcore base, but among people who don’t like either candidate—the so-called double doubters—it might come off as highly inauthentic and crass….

For the record, Trump remains an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped. We can’t stop saying it in response to bad faith GOP claims that we are actually the ones stoking violence. That is basic Republican gaslighting, and we should pay it no heed.

So, yes, we will stop Trump. But we will do it with ballots, not bullets.

Michael Tomasky of The New Republic offers good advice about defeating Donald Trump. It’s about shaping a narrative, constantly reminding people that he is a convicted felon.

It might also be helpful to reiterate that he had sex with a porn star while his wife Melanie was recuperating from childbirth; that a jury decided that he sexually assaulted and defamed journalist E. Jean Carroll and owes her nearly $100 million dollars; that the State of New York successfully sued him for fraudulently reporting the value of his properties to reduce his taxes and was ordered to pay more than $400 million.

Tomasky writes:

If there is such a thing as one infamous quote that defines an era, then during the George W. Bush presidency it was an on-background remark made by a Bush aide to the journalist Ron Suskind in 2002 that appeared two years later in The New York Times Magazine. A “senior adviser” who was unhappy about an earlier article by Suskind had called him on the carpet and then went on to explain the broader world view that Suskind failed to comprehend:

The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”

The passage was instantly incendiary (everyone thinks it was Karl Rove; Rove has never confirmed this, and Suskind has never revealed his source). The arrogance of it, at a time when the Iraq War was hardly going to plan, was staggering. Some Democrats took the jibe as a badge of honor and began sporting “Reality-Based Community” buttons.

Republicans have a long track record of disastrous results. The Iraq War, which we were told in early 2003 would take a couple months, lasted years, killed hundreds of thousands, and cost trillions (and by the way, Iraq is still not close to being a free country). Bush also would go on to let a major American city drown (New Orleans) and nearly destroy the global economic order.

But we have to say this: None of that ever dims their confidence that they can create their own reality. And today, by which I mean right now, this week, Democrats can and must learn a thing or two from Republicans.

While Donald Trump was on trial, the conventional wisdom was that the outcome would have no effect on the election. The only people who disagreed were some conservatives—because they were sure it would actually help him.

But now we have a couple polls telling us something different. The conviction has the potential to hurt Trump. But emphasis on “potential.” It depends entirely on what the Democrats do with it. So this is the key question: Are the Democrats capable of creating their own reality? Do they have the imagination and courage to do it?

First, the polls. In a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken after Trump’s conviction, 10 percent of Republicans and 25 percent of independents said the conviction made them less likely to vote for Trump. To be sure, majorities of both said it would have no effect, and 35 percent of Republicans said a conviction made them more likely to back Trump.

But the important number is that 10 percent. That is a huge number. Think it through with me. In 2020, 158 million people voted. According to the CNN exit polls, 36 percent were Republicans. That’s 57 million voters. If Trump were to lose 5.7 million Republicans, he would not only lose but probably lose convincingly. Even if half of that 10 percent comes back to him, he’d lose 2.85 million. That’s still a huge number.

Let’s do a little more math. In the key swing state of Arizona, the vote total was about 3.3 million. If we follow the CNN exit polls that put the GOP vote nationwide at 36 percent, then just shy of 1.2 million Arizona voters were Republican. If Trump were to lose 5 percent of them, that would amount to about 59,000 votes. And Arizona was decided, of course, by about 12,000 votes in 2020. In Georgia, which again was decided by roughly 12,000 votes, Trump would lose around 88,000 votes. In Michigan, it would be 99,000 votes lost if just 5 percent of Republicans desert him. In Pennsylvania, it would be close to 124,000 votes. And remember, I’m lowballing Republican defections from the poll’s 10 percent to half that, and I’m not even counting independents.

I trust you see the importance here.

Second post-conviction poll: Morning Consult found that 15 percent of Republicans believe Trump should end his candidacy. Now, there are no numbers to crunch here, and Trump is obviously not going to do that. But if roughly every seventh Republican really thinks Trump should end his candidacy, that is a staggering number, and again a potentially devastating one for him.

And again—emphasis on “potentially.”

Democrats, the ball is in your court. You can make your usual “judicious study of discernible reality” and buy into the lazy—and apparently wrong—conventional wisdom that says the verdict will make no difference.

Or you can create a new reality in which the verdict makes a big difference—maybe the difference between Joe Biden being reelected and Donald Trump destroying our democracy.

How to do it? There are lots of ways. But let’s start with this. “Convicted felon Donald Trump.” Not once. Not 10 times. Not 10,000 times. More like 500,000 times.

Seriously: No federal Democratic officeholder should, for the foreseeable future, say the name “Donald Trump” without putting the words “convicted felon” before it. We might give Biden himself a partial exemption here, because for a president, that kind of blunt, partisan repetition may be a little undignified. But no one else. Chuck Schumer. Hakeem Jeffries. Cori Bush on the left. Jared Golden on the right. Every. Single. One of them.

Blunt repetition may be boring. Democrats and liberals are intellectually averse to it, because it’s intellectually dull, and we’re supposed to be the smart side, always finding clever new arguments. But it works. People need to hear things over and over and over for it to lodge in their long-term memory.

Think of how many times you heard “Crooked Hillary” in 2016. Did they sound like mentally dull robots? Yes. But did it sink in, for millions of swing voters? Well, we do know this: As many as 40 percent of voters in 2016 polls said they thought she was corrupt. And when James Comey reopened that email investigation in late October, many of those voters thought: Aha. Crooked Hillary. Just what the Republicans have been saying.

This is how people’s brains work. Don’t take it from me. Take it from Gretchen Smelzer, a psychologist whom I admit I just found on Google on Sunday morning but who appears to be legit and whose 2018 book Journey Through Traumaearned a brief but respectful write-up in The New York Times. On her website, Smelzer writes:

There are only three ways that information can move from short-term memory to long term memory: urgency, repetition, or association.…

Repetition is the most familiar learning tool—everyone has memorized facts or vocabulary words by repeating them, and some have improved basketball free-throw shooting or playing piano scales through practice. Repetition creates long term memory by eliciting or enacting strong chemical interactions at the synapse of your neuron (where neurons connect to other neurons). Repetition creates the strongest learning.…

So Democrats. Here’s your situation. You can let this drop, thus ensuring that by November 5, Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts by a jury that deliberated for less than 10 hours will be totally forgotten, and no one will carry the thought of it into the voting booth. Or you can hammer away at it, never letting voters forget it—and by the way, driving Trump crazy the whole time, making it likely that he’ll say nuttier and nuttier things about it—and do all you can to swing those 59,000 votes in Arizona and all the rest.

It’s up to you. Do you want to wake up on Wednesday, November 6, with Trump having won, and with exit polls showing that his conviction made no difference? If not, well … as Malone (Sean Connery) said to Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner) about stopping another mobster: “What are you prepared to do?”